American Riots, Michael Brown....is it justified ?

[Gfted1]

I'm not saying his death wasn't an accident. But why was a choke hold applied in the first place? He wasn't violent, merely resisting. Did he really need to be choked?There was no attempt to calm the situation down, several cops just pushed him down on the ground... and he died.  If there are no grounds for a criminal trial then there must be some other way for a semblance of justice.

 

I've been choked in martial arts class and choked others - the experience isn't pretty and is possibly the worst way to try to defuse a situation. Once you start to be choked the first instinct is to fight and resist more rather than let go.

 

I don't think there will be a completely 100% non-lethal method to take down a mook in the near future. Choke holds, tazers, pepper spray, bean bag bullets, etc... all can kill if they hit you in the sweet spot. I fully support a method to develop some kind of sticky bomb, deployed by drone, that can be fired at a mook and will envelop them in a ball of goo.   

 

 

He died because the choke hold exacerbated an existing asthma condition. He was not choked to death and a grand jury (which will indict a sandwich) found no grounds to proceed with a criminal trial.

 

"A city medical examiner found that the 43-year-old Garner was killed by neck compression from the chokehold along with “the compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police”. Asthma, heart disease and obesity were contributing factors."

 

"The medical examiner said compression of the neck and chest, along with Garner's positioning on the ground while being restrained by police during the July 17 stop on Staten Island, caused his death.

Garner's acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease were contributing factors, the medical examiner determined."

 

It was a homicide, according to the medical examiner.

 

 

Edit: not to mention that the use of choke holds is against department policy, so there was absolutely no justification whatsoever to use it against a nonviolent (see video) person.

 

 

The grand jury didn't agree. Per Wiki: "The "grand jury" in the United States is composed of 12 to 23 citizens." So are we now devolving into this case being some nefarious plot by random citizens off the street to protect rogue cops? Grand juries have a reputation for indicting for anything, yet they didn't in this case. Ever wonder why? Maybe they know more facts about the case?

[Amentep]

The grand jury didn't agree. Per Wiki: "The "grand jury" in the United States is composed of 12 to 23 citizens." So are we now devolving into this case being some nefarious plot by random citizens off the street to protect rogue cops? Grand juries have a reputation for indicting for anything, yet they didn't in this case. Ever wonder why? Maybe they know more facts about the case?

Valsuelm makes a fair point with regard that a DA has a vested interest in not alienating the people they work with by providing vigerous prosecution.

 

But as Grand Jurys are secret, we'll never know if there wasn't enough evidence of if the DA presented a weak case to ensure his future cases don't get sabatoged.

[Valsuelm]

 

The grand jury didn't agree. Per Wiki: "The "grand jury" in the United States is composed of 12 to 23 citizens." So are we now devolving into this case being some nefarious plot by random citizens off the street to protect rogue cops? Grand juries have a reputation for indicting for anything, yet they didn't in this case. Ever wonder why? Maybe they know more facts about the case?

Valsuelm makes a fair point with regard that a DA has a vested interest in not alienating the people they work with by providing vigerous prosecution.

 

But as Grand Jurys are secret, we'll never know if there wasn't enough evidence of if the DA presented a weak case to ensure his future cases don't get sabatoged.

 

 

While what exactly is discussed between the members of the jury when they deliberate behind closed doors is secret, the actual proceedings and evidence presented in any given case usually is not and is a matter of public record. ie: One can read what the grand jury in the Ferguson case saw and heard here:

 

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/

 

For less famous cases one would have to go to the local courthouse where case X was heard and petition to acquire the information. But it's information that anyone can get if they wish to (you often need to pay a fee to cover the costs of providing that material. A fee which one might find is reasonable or unjustifiably high depending on where they live. If it's the latter you can be rest assured that your local court system is corrupt.

[Amentep]

The deliberations were what I meant; reading the evidence and thinking there is/isn't enough for a conviction as an individual may be enlightening but it doesn't really tell us what went through the heads of the grand jury at the time the debated and decided.

[Gfted1]

 

The grand jury didn't agree. Per Wiki: "The "grand jury" in the United States is composed of 12 to 23 citizens." So are we now devolving into this case being some nefarious plot by random citizens off the street to protect rogue cops? Grand juries have a reputation for indicting for anything, yet they didn't in this case. Ever wonder why? Maybe they know more facts about the case?

Valsuelm makes a fair point with regard that a DA has a vested interest in not alienating the people they work with by providing vigerous prosecution.

 

But as Grand Jurys are secret, we'll never know if there wasn't enough evidence of if the DA presented a weak case to ensure his future cases don't get sabatoged.

 

 

I suppose anything could happen. Im just not one that sees bogeymen operating behind the scenes every time a decision doesn't go as I expect. I take it on face value that the grand juries in Ferguson and this case know more about the situation than we do. Imo, due to the media coverage, there's no way that evidence was suppressed. But of course facts never get in the way of a good paranoia.

[Amentep]

"You've got your facts in my paranoia!"

"No you got your paranoia in my facts!"

[Malcador]

Wonder how well a "Well sure he died from me grabbing his neck, but I didn't mean it" will hold up for someone not wearing a badge. Must be glorious to be a cop

 

I still stand by my stance of volunteering NYPD officers to go fight ISIS.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Malcador

[Valsuelm]

 

I suppose anything could happen. Im just not one that sees bogeymen operating behind the scenes every time a decision doesn't go as I expect. I take it on face value that the grand juries in Ferguson and this case know more about the situation than we do. Imo, due to the media coverage, there's no way that evidence was suppressed. But of course facts never get in the way of a good paranoia.

 

 

Only because you're too lazy to go enlighten yourself, and are content with others doing the thinking for you.

 

And if you think that just because there's a lot of media attention to something that things still can't be hidden.... well.... shoot me a pm for some good deals on bridges I have special just for you!

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Wonder how well a "Well sure he died from me grabbing his neck, but I didn't mean it" will hold up for someone not wearing a badge. 

 

Yeah, this.

 

"Cops are murdering innocent citizens!" is obviously a sensationalist and untrue summary of the events, but it was a homicide.

Edited December 4, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Gfted1]

 

 

I suppose anything could happen. Im just not one that sees bogeymen operating behind the scenes every time a decision doesn't go as I expect. I take it on face value that the grand juries in Ferguson and this case know more about the situation than we do. Imo, due to the media coverage, there's no way that evidence was suppressed. But of course facts never get in the way of a good paranoia.

 

 

Only because you're too lazy to go enlighten yourself, and are content with others doing the thinking for you.

 

And if you think that just because there's a lot of media attention to something that things still can't be hidden.... well.... shoot me a pm for some good deals on bridges I have special just for you!

 

 

Yes, Im sure you have it all figured out to the exclusion of everyone else.   But you are correct in the assumption that I am too lazy to discuss stupid conspiracy theories with you.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

2. Was the policeman justified by LAW to use such extreme method when dealing with a citizen.

The Law doesn't matter. It suits the purposes of those in power. Like the many rulings from various courts, the police have no obligation to protect you or anything else. The only good thing about this Ferguson ordeal, is that it has shown what the police are actually paid to do. They stand idle while looters pillage, ransack, and immolate property across the street whilst wearing combat armor, automatic machine guns, sniper rifles, and armored combat vehicles keep the actual protesters monitored.

[HoonDing]

The guy was fat. Rather than killing him, they could've tried luring him to the police station with a trail of doughnuts.

[Gromnir]

we worked at a juvenile hall in northern california for awhile and were initially trained in pain-compliance techniques. that sounded bad to folks, so the name were changed to an enigmatic abbreviation: MAB.  the training didn't change much following the name change, but we were cautioned against certain techniques when "counseling" residents via a hands-on approach. as you might guess, our perspective regarding use-o' force is gonna necessarily be different than many people as our experience is different.  we has seen choke holds performed though we never used one as it were too likely to cause a red flag when an incident report were written up. we were trained in their use and application.  we may have used a reap throw... once or twice. even so, when we first saw the video we thought there were arguable enough evidence to get a jury trial.   

 

few  points:

 

1) mr. garner resisted arrest.  a man with a heart condition and asthma resists arrest and dies. this is not shocking to us. #1 lesson all this should not be that police is brutal, but rather that the death were complete unnecessary if mr. garner had simply complied peacefully.

 

2) choke holds were not illegal in ny at the time of the incident. identify that a choke hold caused injury is not actual actionable in itself. the ny city police department doesn't like them 'cause they open up the department to law suits, but most attempts to make choke holds illegal for police fail 'cause it is a useful technique and if a cop is in genuine danger, criminalizing the use o' a technique that might save his/her life doesn't sit well with most cops and anybody else with a serious concern for cop safety.

 

3) please keep in mind that the media is playing fast and loose with the facts. the initial medical examiner did use choke hold language, but the actual autopsy performed at a later date indicated that there were no actual damage done to mr. garner's throat. sure, there still coulda' been contributing damage to the neck that exacerbated mr. garner's condition(s) and the force used by the cops might still have been excessive, but the reason choke holds is prohibited were not the immediate cause o' death... which makes prosecutor case more difficult. is just one example o' the odd way media is covering events in ny. 

 

4) we didn't initial see the take-down o' mr. garner as including a choke hold as we understand the term. is perhaps ironic, but the complaints of "i can't breathe," pretty much assured us that no real choke hold were being performed as you cannot f'ing breathe when subjected to such a hold. from a video, how many of us can distinguish a choke hold from a strangle hold from a headlock? 

 

5) the question o' whether or not there were an excessive use of force in this instance is a question o' fact. looking at the tape, we see an argument that there were excessive force and the proper venue for determining such a question o' fact should be a criminal trial. 

 

am knowing that to the average american, the video looks violent and horrible, but we don't see what you folks is seeing. the encounter looked relative ordinary and the only thing that makes it unusual to us is the death o' the individual who were resisting arrest. that being said, we do see enough in the video that we believe a jury trial is warranted, though we doubt we would feel the same if we were one o' the cops involved.

 

quick funny juvenile hall story that we mighta' shared previous. one night we got stuck working in d-unit and we saw something strange. we hated d-unit, even at night, 'cause d-unit were the girls unit. we typical worked j-unit (high security wherein the accused murders and rapists were housed) or at intake where new residents (often drunk or drugged) were processed and then assigned to a unit. Gromnir were a physical imposing personage with a calm demeanor, so the powers-that-be saw us as useful for dealing with the more dangerous residents-- j-unit and intake. yippie. in juvenile hall, we would rather deal with murders than teenage girls. teenage girls are horrible, and a unit filled with 30-40 angry teenage girls awaiting trial is not a pleasant environment.

 

anywho, one morning, just before the end o' our shift, we is doing a room check wherein we check every room to make sure the residents ain't killing or screwing each other... screwing themselves is ok, but killing self is frowned 'pon as it 'causes no end o' paperwork. one resident we had dealt with numerous times in the past were named F______.  she were 5'9" or 5'10" and just over 300 lbs, and a surprisingly solid 300lbs. F_______ had anger issues and impulse control issues and she were more than a little crazy. we had been forced to "dip" her once when she attacked a fellow resident, and it had reminded us o' surfing... and not fun surfing.  water is extreme heavy, and is sometimes when you get thrown from your board and the wave crashes down on you that you realize just how much force even a mid-sized wave produces. wrestling F________ to the ground felt like getting tossed about by a 10' wave. so, we walk by her room at 6:45 am, a room which she shared with another girl, and we see F________ standing in front of the sink in her room rubbing her face with... something. we tap on her door to get her attention and she turned to face us... turned preternaturally slow. in each of her hands is an orange half-- residents typical were given a s"snack" right before bedtime, though the more common snack were cheese-its or pop-tarts or something similar.  oranges were not a popular snack, but F________ had come up with a new use for the fruit as she were rubbing the citrus fruit into her eyes.

 

...

 

after we have our surreal wtf moment, we ask F________ what she is doing though we can clearly see she is rubbing orange into her eyes. 

 

"it makes the pepper spray hurt less."

 

*sigh*

 

"F______," we says "my shift ends in fifteen minutes, so whatever the hell you are planning, wait until i am gone to do it."

 

she kinda/maybe nods and then goes back to rubbing orange into her eyes.

 

we warned the incoming staff that F________ appeared to be a "bit agitated" without mentioning the orange stuff, and then we left for the day.  our next day o' work were three days later and we admit we were kinda amused to hear how it took 4 guys from security to deal with F_______ on the day of her orange experiment.

 

as we say, our pov is different.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 4, 2014 by Gromnir

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

2) choke holds were not illegal in ny at the time of the incident. identify that a choke hold caused injury is not actual actionable in itself. the ny city police department doesn't like them 'cause they open up the department to law suits, but most attempts to make choke holds illegal for police fail 'cause it is a useful technique and if a cop is in genuine danger, criminalizing the use o' a technique that might save his/her life doesn't sit well with most cops and anybody else with a serious concern for cop safety.

 

 

It is my understanding that they were against departmental policy, though, and its use was completely unwarranted in the situation, given that the guy didn't really mount a significant resistance against... well, anything.

 

 

But setting all considerations aside, doesn't "accidentally killing a dude through the compression of the chest which triggers a host of existing medical conditions" constitute as manslaughter? 

[Volourn]

The fact the cop got away with cold blooded murder here is sick. Choking someone to death is evil.  Unlike Ferguson there is absolutely justification for this very calculated very evil for immoral act. The fact the pig got away with it legally is sickening.

[Malcador]

Well, he will lose his job, Volo. That's pain enough. Or something. Also I assume he's really upset about it too, so that is on him as well.

[Amentep]

But setting all considerations aside, doesn't "accidentally killing a dude through the compression of the chest which triggers a host of existing medical conditions" constitute as manslaughter?

How would the police know he had existing medical conditions for that to be a consideration in whether they used a proper response to the situation?

[Valsuelm]

 

But setting all considerations aside, doesn't "accidentally killing a dude through the compression of the chest which triggers a host of existing medical conditions" constitute as manslaughter?

How would the police know he had existing medical conditions for that to be a consideration in whether they used a proper response to the situation?

 

 

Choking someone, was not a proper response to the situation.

[Gromnir]

"against department policy" isn't all that meaningful in regards to questions o' what is legal appropriate or reasonable. the media has really beaten it into folks that calling this a choke hold is significant, but it actually isn't.  was the force excessive or not? the fact that choke holds (which may or may not have been used on garner) is discouraged by the nyc police department is not having the legal relevance some seem to believe it does.

 

"given that the guy didn't really mount a significant resistance against... well, anything."

 

subjective. garner were not complying with police verbal instructions and is not as if he immediate went to his knees even when the one officer grabbed garner from behind. the cop with the headlock move were lifted off the ground and bounced into the storefront before mr. garner ended up on the ground. how long were this incident? quick? then again, how long had police been giving garner warnings and verbal instructions? there were six(?) cops on the scene? you don't have six cops arrest a guy for loosies, so am guessing mr. garner were being agitated and obstinate for at least enough time as it took to gather half a dozen cops. regardless, we were personally trained to disable an individual quickly and with a minimum of force... which is actual contradictory concepts. ultimately, the safety of Gromnir and his fellow juvenile hall employees was paramount. faced with the prospect of restraining a +300lb man, we would likely have used a move that had a far more violent looking appearance... though am pretty sure we woulda' pepper-sprayed first. am not sure of nyc policy on pepper spray. 

 

this is also a situation where the arms raised stuff become illustrative. mr. garner were swinging his arms about. from your perspective that probably don't mean much, but from ours it is significant. the more gentle techniques we were taught for restraining an individual involve getting ahold of a hand. if we ain't certain we can get a hand, chances are we is gonna end up employing some kinda throw, which will send the person resisting to the ground... violently.

 

but again, we see enough for a trial, even if we don't see a choke hold and regardless o' the fact that the video is actual far less violent than stuff we saw daily/weekly... and keep in mind that we were working with juveniles. perhaps that is what you should find genuine scary. if you thinks what happened to garner were violent, then you is likely gonna be appalled at what occurs in 90% of arrests wherein the officers need put hands on an individual... and maybe that is an issue worth looking into more. 

 

"But setting all considerations aside, doesn't "accidentally killing a dude through the compression of the chest which triggers a host of existing medical conditions" constitute as manslaughter? "

 

why would it? am betting that there is chest compression occurring while detaining many people who resist arrest. most such folks don't die. the reasonableness o' the force is not a sliding scale dependent on unknown medical conditions. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 4, 2014 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

I wouldn't really use the turnout of officers as any example, I've seen 5-6 cars of cops turn out to an old lady making noise in her home.

 

For some amusement, scan the comments here - http://www.policeone.com/Crowd-Control/articles/7921845-Lawyer-No-indictment-in-NYPD-in-custody-death/

[Amentep]

 

 

But setting all considerations aside, doesn't "accidentally killing a dude through the compression of the chest which triggers a host of existing medical conditions" constitute as manslaughter?

How would the police know he had existing medical conditions for that to be a consideration in whether they used a proper response to the situation?

 

 

Choking someone, was not a proper response to the situation.

 

That wasn't what aluminiumtrioxid's point was, his point was "accidently killing a dude through the compression of the chest which triggers a host of existing medical conditions"; thus my point is to question whether unknown pre-existing medical conditions can be considered at all before an action is taken by the police. Because they can't by definition; they're unknown.

 

This does not mean that taking the action is valid (or invalid) by necessity. Just that I don't see how the pre-existing medical condition can change that validity/invalidity of the action.

 

In essence, it was either right or wrong to choke/restrain the man or it wasn't. The medical condition couldn't have been known at the time so can't be a factor in determining the rightness or wrongness of the action.

[Gromnir]

I wouldn't really use the turnout of officers as any example, I've seen 5-6 cars of cops turn out to an old lady making noise in her home.

 

For some amusement, scan the comments here - http://www.policeone.com/Crowd-Control/articles/7921845-Lawyer-No-indictment-in-NYPD-in-custody-death/

 

an old lady making noise in her home is far more likely to get more cop attention then the garner situation. were the old lady a victim o' domestic violence? were she being attacked? were she attacking somebody else? unknown situation with possible violence occurring should get more cop attention. compared to garner, who local shop keepers were complaining 'bout his selling of loosies?  is not analogous.

 

we can't read comments in your link without disabling javascript, but then again, we has seen enough comments at cnn and npr to makes us roll our eyes.  as we said earlier in this thread, we, Americans, are so polarized on race that we can't have meaningful dialogue.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

Well the call in that case was that she was acting belligerent, as I spoke to the guy who called for them. He was rather amused at 12 officers showing up, 2 of which did work while the 10 stood around trying to look badass or something. In my experience cops tend to follow some manual of over-projection of force here. Understandable, but it's so common that it's meaningless to the actual situation present.

 

The comments there are from police, well supposed ones, on reaction to the verdict. The really amusing ones are the ones that use "brother" and are either worrying about police being hunted or doing the usual "the public hates us!" routine.

[Gfted1]

All that proves Malc is that the Canadian authorities are in cahoots with the reverse vampire illuminati stonecutter cabal that is secretly trying to pick off minorities one criminal complaint at a time. smh.

[Drowsy Emperor]

It is true what gromnir says - subduing someone without hurting them is a very difficult task, particularly if they go all in/drugged/mad. Hell, even wrestling for fun with my gf who is 5ft4 and 130something pounds is hard when I have to watch out for her at the same time. And I'm 6'3 208 pounds.

 

That said, I don't see the man being sufficiently violent or even the possibility of becoming violent to warrant choking him and piling on top of him. Its bad handling and bad policy to treat a hooligan out for a scrap and a fat middle aged father of 5 the same way, even if he is a small time criminal. 

Edited December 4, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor